Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

It's widely known that plasma cosmology gets about as much credit from the mainstream as LCDM cosmologists get from plasma cosmologists. That rift is as fervent as it is factually problematic, yet there are only the gradual admissions from conventional cosmology that their model is just not equipped to explain itself. From there it seems the LCDM side runs just on its own momentum and at times, even its outright, professed bias.

But it's that gradual shift from a position of confidence to one of, as they themselves put it, bewilderment that interests me as it might pertain to conventional cosmological assumptions in the broader, more general world. In much the same vein as the Thunderbolts movement issues regular, increasingly confident findings, might EU proponents also venture out more, empowered by these findings?

Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology have rejected it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as current cosmological theory.

Regardless of which stance one has, that's simply not true. I don't know how old this statement is but I think a more accurate edit would read:

Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology have rejected it not because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as current cosmological theory, but because it disagrees with prior conventions. In fact, recent scientific findings more resemble the predictions of plasma cosmologists than they do those of the conventional model.

An encyclopedia entry is a small thing, granted, but I was struck by how outdated and incomplete this remark was. It seems fertile grounds for revision and correction.

I watch the EU for signs of an intractable, incontrovertible momentum toward a more complete view of the things it touches on. At no point do I find it off-kilter, odd, poorly-reasoned, or fringe. Rather, it has that lovely, accelerating ring of what a forensic researcher would call - even as David Talbot already has - patterns of evidence, where patterns indicates repeatability and evidence indicates real knowledge.

That's a formidable combination and all but surely bodes well for the EU's future as a replacement field of research and knowledge. If plasma cosmology continues to better explain all the phenomenon it's already acquitted itself regarding, then at some point the tipping begins, never to return to today's popular consensus. It's interesting to witness the era in which this change occurs.

JHL wrote:An encyclopedia entry is a small thing, granted, but I was struck by how outdated and incomplete this remark was. It seems fertile grounds for revision and correction.

I watch the EU for signs of an intractable, incontrovertible momentum toward a more complete view of the things it touches on. At no point do I find it off-kilter, odd, poorly-reasoned, or fringe. Rather, it has that lovely, accelerating ring of what a forensic researcher would call - even as David Talbot already has - patterns of evidence, where patterns indicates repeatability and evidence indicates real knowledge.

That's a formidable combination and all but surely bodes well for the EU's future as a replacement field of research and knowledge. If plasma cosmology continues to better explain all the phenomenon it's already acquitted itself regarding, then at some point the tipping begins, never to return to today's popular consensus. It's interesting to witness the era in which this change occurs.

One doesn't even have to look outside of our solar system to find areas of astronomy that are much "better" explained (and simulated in the lab) using EU/PC theories rather than conventional astronomy theory. The sad miserable fact is that the mainstream can't even explain our sun's full sphere corona, let alone simulate one in the lab, a full century after Birkeland and his team not only explained it, they recreated a full sphere 'hot" corona in controlled experimentation. The mainstream is *at least* a century behind Birkeland and his team in terms understanding the atmospheric behaviors of our own sun, and every sun in the universe.

It's impossible to even claim that LCDM is "better than" any other cosmology theory when 95 percent of it amounts to nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance, and they're reduced to supposedly "explaining" various observations based on nothing more than those placeholder terms for human ignorance.

You'll ultimately discover that all the "hit pieces" on EU/PC theory you will run into were written by mainstream authors, and they are guarded very closely by the mainstream in terms of WIKI and other such references. The mainstream simply cannot and will not allow honest public debate. That is because they cannot handle the competition with their ridiculous model. I think the reason that they feel the need to bash on EU/PC theory is driven by fear because deep down inside, they know that it's the empirical cosmology theory that is destined to replace their ignorant dark universe nonsense.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's ever tried to update various WIKI (and other public) references, only to have mainstream authors come back and remove all the changes I've entered. I'm sure I won't be the last one to experience that nonsense either.

When you look at the fact that the mainstream has literally spent *billions* of dollars on their dark matter snipe hunt over the past decade, and they found exactly nothing, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they have no real "explanations" to offer anyone, and they're running scared now.

The only way they can deal with that epic failure is to simply remain in staunch denial, and to tightly control as many references as they can as it relates to astronomy. That's why they constantly misrepresent EU/PC theory, and that's why they're forced to ban us from their websites.

Change is happening, but it's still happening very slowly at the moment. The trickle will eventually turn into a flood, but not until the mainstream admits that they really don't offer any "answers" or "explanations", just dark metaphysical dogma and placeholder terms for ignorance.

Having spent a little over a decade in the EU/PC camp, I know with certainty that change is inevitable because once an individual lets go of the metaphysical dogma of LCDM, it's impossible to "go back". Empirical physics has the answers we seek, and it easily explains the so called "secrets" of the universe, but only when one allows it to do so. They mainstream isn't there yet, but they can see the handwriting on the wall now. Dark matter theory in particular has been a financial and scientific disaster for more than a decade, and something has to give eventually. I give it about five more years and then there will be no more gaps for their metaphysical nonsense to hide in. At that point, they have nowhere else to turn.

JHL wrote:I watch the EU for signs of an intractable, incontrovertible momentum toward a more complete view of the things it touches on. At no point do I find it off-kilter, odd, poorly-reasoned, or fringe. Rather, it has that lovely, accelerating ring of what a forensic researcher would call - even as David Talbot already has - patterns of evidence, where patterns indicates repeatability and evidence indicates real knowledge.

When you look at the fact that the mainstream has literally spent *billions* of dollars on their dark matter snipe hunt over the past decade, and they found exactly nothing, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they have no real "explanations" to offer anyone...

Michael, your remark helps galvanize what for me is the final philosophical straw against the LCDM. To explain, let me list the intellectual elements of this dynamic; the handholds we might variously gain as we look at the broader subject of cosmology, more or less in their chronological order.

1. The LCDM is "scientific" in that it has the consensus, the research, and the history. Surely it must be largely on the right path.

2. The EU is an interesting, even entertaining view of what must be, pursuant #1, a partial view. It can't be as credible for the same reasons the LCDM view is credible.

3. Einstein, et al, were brilliant enough to fill in the gaps. What they didn't fill in they could construct in the abstract. This theoretical science must be credible or we'd not be doing it. QED.

Now comes more weight of evidence:

4. But the EU model keeps piling on more and more confirmation. The LCDM side does indeed throw its hands up a lot. That doesn't necessarily shift the conventional narrative because the cause of noble science is to diligently strive, generally along habitual paths. The LCDM isn't over yet. (Look, gravity waves in the non-aether aether!)

And then comes the tipping point:

5. Wait, the LCDM is dealing in abstracts and those abstracts are just not holding to the patterns of evidence. Is cosmology such a vast field that it cannot hew to our traditional assumptions? Wouldn't that be a kick in the head.

6. The EU, meanwhile, has such a momentum of its own that the combination of 4 and 5 cannot reasonably overturn it. Not just that but the EU is actually predicting what the LCDM field is almost weekly admitting its failures about. What's anyone expected to do with that? Deny it exists?

7. It appears that the LCDM and its abstracts and its partial views is only about as reliable as any such complete conjecture could be. If that's all it is why exactly is it the reigning authority?

It's that last question - the one that arises when you realize that the conventional view is a sheaf of ideas more than it's a set of real applied knowledge - that naturally occurs when an adequate perspective becomes impossible to deny. In short, we've been dealing in one of science's obsolete paradigms. They happen. This isn't internecine haggling for supremacy; it's the slow passing away of a field of speculation. That'll take time.

That doesn't mean its replacement is infallible either; just that its hunch is legitimate as far as the real evidence goes. The smart money is going to have to reconsider what to invest in.

I said above that the EU had that patina of reasonableness; that wonderful pattern of evidence. While I've no affection for or loyalty to standard, self-obsoleting sciences - they naturally happen - for me the tipping point is the simple realization that what's been touted as the official theory is just worn out and that it's mechanism of speculative math and this scientific theory it holds as gospel was only one blind man touching the elephant.

The LCDM is simply not the elephant and that's okay.

It's an interesting time to be alive. Finally, the Universe's own spontaneous violation of its purported laws of cause and effect thermodynamics shall be resolved. All of This is vastly, incomprehensibly larger than that, and it is at the same time as that unfathomable mystery has just started to take on a more reasonable, more knowable personality.

And what's most intriguing is what that could mean. That's refreshing because the Big Bang et al mean nothing. Those old conventions are just too damnably easy, smug, and egocentric...

JHL wrote:An encyclopedia entry is a small thing, granted, but I was struck by how outdated and incomplete this remark was. It seems fertile grounds for revision and correction.

There is so much wrong with wikipedia and mainstream "science".In many areas I found severe errors that conflict with reality.But I am afraid that people's "mind would blow", if there would be correct information.

The basis of mainstream science seems to create "experts" that spawn theories that can not be dis-proven.And to maintain those theories by attacking alternatives, and of course valid proofs or valid evidence against those theories.

A lot of this is visible in plasma physics, with unicorns like "magnetic reconnection".

Sadly you often have to be an "expert" to be able to see through their fantasies.And when you do, you are no longer considered an "expert".

Plasma cosmology can be a very simple concept:"Plasma is important in the formation of stars and what we observe."

The Electric universe can be presented as:"Electromagnetic phenomena have a significant influence in our universe."

Both are true, even in the mainstream sense.

Now we can add some variations with mainstream:

In plasma cosmology it is possible that redshifts are caused by interstellar plasma.weak: It may influence the redshift caused by inflation.strong: maybe there is no inflation at all.

The Electric Universe predicts that electromagnetic phenomena are causing the formation of stars.weak: It may be that static charges can compress gasses to form stars. strong: Currents through plasma can form stars. Maybe even ignite nuclear reactions.

While many scientists will simply refuse to look at it, I do thinkthat it might interest scientists that have more of an open mind.

JHL wrote:1. The LCDM is "scientific" in that it has the consensus, the research, and the history. Surely it must be largely on the right path.

2. The EU is an interesting, even entertaining view of what must be, pursuant #1, a partial view. It can't be as credible for the same reasons the LCDM view is credible.

3. Einstein, et al, were brilliant enough to fill in the gaps. What they didn't fill in they could construct in the abstract. This theoretical science must be credible or we'd not be doing it. QED.

I think you portray things in the first three points you make the way that the *mainstream* perceives them, but....

With respect to point 1, consensus is *not* a guarantee of scientific legitimacy. Aristarchus of Samos was the first individual to propose that the sun was the center of our solar system, and the Earth rotated on it's axis, more than fifteen centuries before the Europeans finally caught on to that fact. He was probably ridiculed and dismissed just as EU/PC theory is ridiculed and dismissed today, but just look at the so called "mainstream model". It's mostly made of metaphysical placeholder terms for human ignorance, with a smattering of pseudoscience related to plasma physics. There's really no empirical substance to any of it, nor has it ever really been "good science". It's the "consensus* at the moment, but that doesn't necessarily make it "scientific", let alone "correct", or "on the right path".

With respect to your second point, EU/PC theory draws it's scientific legitimacy from empirically demonstrated events which can be duplicated in the lab, just like all other empirical branches of physics, including the empirical physics that works in our computers and cellphones. It's not at all like LCDM in that sense because nothing about LCDM actually works in the lab, not "space expansion", not 'inflation", not dark energy, and definitely not "dark matter" which has quite literally been a billion dollar metaphysical money pit.

With respect to your third point, I think you'd agree that stuffing magic into a GR formula doesn't really give magic any scientific credibility. Likewise, stuffing exotic matter and energy into a GR formula doesn't give those ideas any actual scientific legitimacy, though the mainstream likes to belief that it does. All they've demonstrated with LCDM is that it's entirely possible to "muck up" a perfectly good empirical physics theory with metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. If we simply replace the placeholder terms for human ignorance with more appropriate terms, it's quite easy to see that. If we were proposing "black magic matter" and "satanic energy" as the movers and shakers of cosmology theory, we'd be the laughing stock of physics. Somehow however, the mainstream has convinced themselves that metaphysics is an appropriate way to "explain" stuff. It's not even a real "explanation" in the first place, which is why their black magic matter theory has been such an epic disaster in the lab, and that's really the *only* part of LCDM theory that *could* show up in a lab.

I think future astronomers will look back at these times and shake their heads in utter disbelief that so called "modern humans" could be so damn gullible and so stupid. There's no need to evoke metaphysics to explain simple things like screwed up mass estimation techniques, or to explain how inelastic scattering is the cause of photon redshift. These things are easy to actually demonstrate in the lab, and we have ample evidence that the mainstream has no clue how to actually calculate the amount of ordinary matter in a galaxy. They've never been good at it.

We know from history that metaphysical mumbo-jumbo is always eventually replaced with empirical explanations, and astronomy will be no different. EU/PC theory will eventually replace the metaphysical dogma of today, and when that happens, there's no turning back. The best that LCDM proponents can hope to do is to stem the tide, and put their fingers in the holes in the dike for as long as they can. Sooner or later however, dogma will give way to real physics and real physical explanations. Whether than happens in my lifetime, I cannot say for sure, but I can say for sure that it will happen sooner or later.

Birkeland died before the mainstream even understood that he was right about aurora, and they still have no clue about the scientific legitimacy of his solar physics research. Even to this day the mainstream cannot create and sustain a full sphere corona around a sphere, even though Birkeland and his team successfully did so over a century ago. Birkeland was like Aristarchus of Samos, just *way* ahead of his time. He was so far ahead, that nobody could believe it, but eventually they will believe. His models actually worked in the lab, which is far more than can be said for mainstream models today. They can't even explain a corona, let alone create and sustain one for hours on end as Birkeland did.

The mainstream is completely electrophobic in 2017. They dare not embrace circuit theory in space, lest their entire belief system crumble and fall. They therefore do what they've done for thousands of years. They deny the legitimacy of alternative ideas, they hold their own online witch hunts, and they burn all their heretics at the public stake.

I'm pretty sure that history won't be kind to folks like Tyson, Plait, Krauss and their ilk. They'll be seen as the laughing stock of physics. the equivalent of the dogmatic "Church" during the time of Galileo, resisting the truth, and threatening any and all skeptics who dare to question their nonsensical dogma. They'll be seen as doing more harm than good during their lifetimes, and they'll been seen as a hindrance to progress, not as knowledgeable "professionals" in their field.

You don't have to look any further than the lies and bullshit spread by folks like lyin' Brian Koberlein and Tom Bridgman to see how low they'll go in terms of misrepresenting the facts. You don't have look any further than the fact that not a single mainstream astronomer stepped up to the plate to set them straight to see how corrupt and how ignorant the mainstream really is in 2017. History won't be kind to them.

My points were markers along a philosophical, intellectual transition from conventional wisdom to granting that the EU and plasma cosmology are reasonable hypothesis - a dawning of awareness as one moves from old to new. As such the first few points reflect the conventional view and the latter few a moving away from it.

The overall point, however, is that there's nothing in plasma cosmology (or the EU) to warrant branding it either unreasonable or unfounded. That's where the Wiki entry was so jarring - it's simply objectively false, which illustrates one or more of those outdated stages of thought I enumerated much more than it reflects on, in its case, plasma cosmology...

JHL wrote:My points were markers along a philosophical, intellectual transition from conventional wisdom to granting that the EU and plasma cosmology are reasonable hypothesis - a dawning of awareness as one moves from old to new. As such the first few points reflect the conventional view and the latter few a moving away from it.

The overall point, however, is that there's nothing in plasma cosmology (or the EU) to warrant branding it either unreasonable or unfounded. That's where the Wiki entry was so jarring - it's simply objectively false, which illustrates one or more of those outdated stages of thought I enumerated much more than it reflects on, in its case, plasma cosmology...

I agree. I was just noting that there is in fact an empirical difference between ideas and beliefs that actually work in the lab, and those that don't.

IMO LCDM is more akin to astrology than it is to empirical physics because the LCDM model is virtually useless in terms of making successful predictions about the outcome of laboratory experimentation, whereas most EU/PC concepts tend to work in the lab. Whether EU/PC models/ideas are applicable to events in space may still remain to be seen, but unlike LCDM, the core tenets of EU/PC tend to work in the lab. Case in point:

Now it could be that Birkeland's solar model is incorrect, and his explanation for the sun's corona could be inapplicable, but there's no doubt that his ideas work in a laboratory setting, and they are capable of creating and sustaining a full sphere "hot" corona in the lab.

Compare and contrast his explanation for the sun's corona to a concept like "magnetic reconnection" where nobody has yet managed to use that idea to create and sustain a full sphere, hot corona around a cooler object. More importantly, most "magnetic reconnection" experiments in the lab begin and end with an electric field which ultimately powers the process. This can be easily demonstrated simply by unplugging the apparatus and 'reconnection" ends pretty much immediately.

Some LCDM concepts like dark matter have been studied/tested in the lab to the point of absurdity, and yet not a single "prediction' of that hypothesis has born any empirical fruit, even after spending billions of dollars testing various dark matter models. In just the last thirty days, three different experiments all reported null results for two different hypothetical definitions of dark matter, and LHC already blew their most popular mathematical models right out of the water.

Whatever it's faults, EU/PC concepts are not shy around the lab, whereas LCDM has produced *no* useful lab results to date.

There is in fact a huge empirical difference between the two competing cosmology models in terms of how they work in the lab.

Most of the WIKI pages and public statements about EU/PC theory were written by LCDM proponents and they are tightly controlled by them as well. It would be like me writing a WIKI page on the LCDM model. It wouldn't be flattering I assure you.

What really bothers and upsets me is that the mainstream doesn't adopt a more "live and let live" attitude toward WIKI pages that relate to alternative cosmology theories like EU/PC theory, tired light ideas, etc. While it's fine if they wish to promote their own LCDM model as they see fit on their own WIKI pages, they should also allow EU/PC proponents that same professional courtesy and luxury as it relates to presenting EU/PC models on public websites like WIKI. Instead they tend to control those pages too with an iron fist, and they use those pages as a full on frontal assault on the EU/PC model. Worse still, they typically misrepresent the facts as well. That's annoying, unethical, and "unscientific" IMO.

If they were more gracious in terms of allowing proponents of competing models to present those alternative models to the public, it wouldn't be so "jarring" as you put it. As it stands, the mainstream controls every aspect of the presentation of various ideas and they tend to misrepresent the ideas which they don't agree with.

Michael Mozina wrote:...the LCDM model is virtually useless in terms of making successful predictions about the outcome of laboratory experimentation, whereas most EU/PC concepts tend to work in the lab. Whether EU/PC models/ideas are applicable to events in space may still remain to be seen, but unlike LCDM, the core tenets of EU/PC tend to work in the lab.

...

Some LCDM concepts like dark matter have been studied/tested in the lab to the point of absurdity, and yet not a single "prediction' of that hypothesis has born any empirical fruit, even after spending billions of dollars testing various dark matter models. In just the last thirty days, three different experiments all reported null results for two different hypothetical definitions of dark matter, and LHC already blew their most popular mathematical models right out of the water.

...

There is in fact a huge empirical difference between the two competing cosmology models in terms of how they work in the lab.

It's that trend and phenomenon that most drive home the differences between the two models. The standard model is simply outdated. It's only attraction is its own momentum. Therefore, how to get to the position where the EU/PC model is accepted only calls for the realization that since the standard model is wrecked, it must be observed as such and the question should immediately arise as to whether there's a better candidate.

And there is! How luxurious is that, that a sensible, rational, reasonable alternative already exists and that its underlying premises are so robust?

It's rather striking that the standard model cannot defend itself except by habitual negative reaction to its inevitable replacement. That's partisanship, not science. Partisans are found all over the fields, especially where the heavily mainstreamed assumptions about their purported or ostensible sciences overlap them. I can name four major areas where the mainstream, at least, is simply wrong on points, facts, and especially, on trajectory and the future of associated knowledge. The mainstream is for the fields a press release engine, a marketing arm, a church, and a congregation of their faithful. It is decidedly not real, applied knowledge.

So it happens. And the old takes a long, long time to die, especially where industries, institutes, cash flows, and careers are concerned.

Michael Mozina wrote:More importantly, most "magnetic reconnection" experiments in the lab begin and end with an electric field which ultimately powers the process.

That's a stunning realization. The mainstream is building models based on assumptions that it apparently feels don't even have to reflect a whole paradigm - if we just make X work in a limited environment surely we can make that limited environment fit some larger, more complete future picture. We're carrying on this heroic work of ours in large part out of our own hidebound faith in our own scientific nobility. Look; we're even brave enough to admit what we don't know, at least if we can admit it without tarnishing our image or reputation or trajectory.

It's astounding. On the other hand, heretics tend not to fare well and given that these are belief systems, who's going to break out first?

Meanwhile, the universe is obviously powered. Since actions, states, and properties define it, and since all are active, if it weren't powered it couldn't exist. The universe therefore violates the purported laws within it against self-spontaneity, no matter how spectacular the math can be written to be. This is a philosophical question having far too little to do with real, applied knowledge - which is science - to actually be scientific: What motivates all Forces?! What encircles the nucleus with electrons so utterly and mysteriously faithful that they never break their own rules? What is attraction? What is instantaneous interaction regardless of displacement? What underlies what Newton codified?

None of the underlying forces have any explanation and this is acceptable to a science that purports to deem itself sufficient to propose a sensible version of an entire universe wherein the primary assumption is some master-key particle like a Higgs? (As I recall the LHC blew its own premise apart when it nullified not one but both conventional universes, at lease when taken by its original premise. Even if it hadn't, what's the relationship between particles whereby they gain all their properties, and how isn't that just another endless stack of turtles?)

Or this is acceptable to a science that purports to deem itself sufficient to propose a sensible version of the universe wherein the primary assumption is self-creation? It's flabbergasting. Given that this isn't strict science, when are the exiled philosophers allowed to return to the city wrecked by its own inhabitants?

To wit:

Michael Mozina wrote:What really bothers and upsets me is that the mainstream doesn't adopt a more "live and let live" attitude...

If they were more gracious in terms of allowing proponents of competing models to present those alternative models to the public, it wouldn't be so "jarring" as you put it. As it stands, the mainstream controls every aspect of the presentation of various ideas and they tend to misrepresent the ideas which they don't agree with.

Exactly. Taken as a sum, it's beyond bizarre. The only reason it stands is because the average plebe doesn't have the interest or the background to ask these questions and demand answers. Even religious types now widely promote the Big Bang as having fallen right out of the first pages of Genesis. They mightily resist challenges to that new faith. Partisanship holds these structures together even while they're touted as and presumed to be established knowledge.

JHL wrote:Exactly. Taken as a sum, it's beyond bizarre. The only reason it stands is because the average plebe doesn't have the interest or the background to ask these questions and demand answers. Even religious types now widely promote the Big Bang as having fallen right out of the first pages of Genesis. They mightily resist challenges to that new faith. Partisanship holds these structures together even while they're touted as and presumed to be established knowledge.

I think a lot of it is fear driven behavior. My experiences over the past decade of so have convinced me that the mainstream knows that it has some serious competition from EU/PC theory, more than they like to admit. It frightens them.

I kinda stumbled on to the whole EU/PC cosmology paradigm by accident about 12 years ago. My passion is solar physics. After studying solar satellite images for about 25 years, I had an epiphany one night while watching some "running difference' images which suggested that the sun has a more rigid (not necessarily solid) layer that sits underneath of the photosphere, and I ended up putting up a website to explain that model (thesurfaceofthesun.com).

I ended up being contacted by Dr. Oliver Manuel after he read the website. He had come to the same conclusions I did with respect to the mass separation of elements via nuclear chemistry and his study of soil samples from the moon landings which showed a peculiar pattern of ionization that led him to many of the same conclusions that I arrived at via solar satellite imagery. We ended up writing a paper together. At some point Dr. Manuel started discussing that paper and our solar model over at Bad Astronomy and I ended up joining the conversation to explain the satellite imagery aspects of our published paper. I certainly expected to take some criticism over the "rigid surface" concept, and the concept of a mass separated solar atmosphere, but I frankly didn't believe at the time that the 'electrical' aspect of that model was particularly controversial. After all, the easiest way to generate million degree plasma is to run current through it. Boy was I naive.

Much to my surprise I got labeled an 'EU crackpot' simply for suggesting that the sun's coronal loops and corona are heated by electrical current. At the time I'd never even heard of EU/PC theory, nor had I read anything about it, although I had read Birkeland's work on his terella experiments. I didn't think that that electrical aspects of our model was really all that controversial at the time, but I found out pretty quickly that I had inadvertently stepped into the middle of an ongoing war between the EU/PC community and the mainstream community.

After being labelled an EU/PC nut, I got curious about EU/PC theory. After being banned at Bad Astronomy for my EU/PC heresy, I became curious about it. I came over here to Thunderbolts and started asking some question about EU/PC theory, and based on the input I got, I started reading Alfven's work and Peratt's work. I slowly began to realize that their explanation of events in space made a lot of sense and I ultimately began to question the whole big bang cosmology model. Once I learned what EU/PC theory had to offer in terms of empirical explanations to many observations, I could no longer be "happy" with mainstream cosmology dogma. It seems very silly to me now in fact.

I may not even have ever heard of EU/PC theory were I not harassed by the mainstream over the electrical aspects of our solar model. I'm grateful that they turned me onto the whole EU/PC paradigm

My experiences with the mainstream suggest that they are afraid that their metaphysical cosmology claims are wrong, and they may have to admit that they have no idea what they're talking about with respect to dark energy and dark matter and 'space expansion".

I think they do realize that empirical physical alternatives to their belief systems has the potential to overturn their whole model, hence their knee jerk reaction to any mention of electricity in space.

By "controlling" WIKI and public presentations of alternative models at their websites, they believe they can "keep it at bay", but that's never going to happen.

Ten years ago they were very confident that LHC would find evidence of exotic types of matter. They'd just come out with their 'bullet cluster study' which claimed to offer "proof" (they actually used that nonscientific term in the paper) of exotic types of matter. LHC was about to be fired up, and many other dark matter experiments were "in the works", so they were very optimistic at the time that exotic matter existed and that they'd have laboratory evidence to back up that idea very soon.

Unfortunately for them, LHC utterly *desroyed* all their 'popular' mathematical models. It crushed SUSY theory. Even worse, all the WIMP experiments have come up empty, including now the LUX and XENON-!T experiments and the most recent PandaX-II results. They have no idea now if exotic matter exists or not. They collectively cannot even name so much as a single source of 'dark energy'. Their optimism is waning, and I smell fear now. If LUX-LZ finds nothing, and Xenon-NT finds nothing, they will have eliminated the WIMP interaction cross section down into the realm of neutrino interactions, and the party is over with respect to WIMP theory. They're already trying to figure out what other models they might explore. Unfortunately the axion experiments have been equally unproductive as have the sterile neutrino concepts. They're running out of ideas now which is why they keep pouring good money after bad searching for WIMPs even after *numerous* failures.

I think fear is the main reason that they behave so bizarrely and the reason that they're actually willing to misrepresent EU/PC models on their websites and blogs. It frightens the older folks in particular since they've invested their entire professional careers in the LCDM model. It's not nearly as easy for them to change cosmology beliefs as it is for someone like me who doesn't have their professional ego (and finances) tied up in the LCMD model.

You'll also see a pattern on mainstream websites. Anyone and everyone who attempts to promote EU/PC theory is banned pretty quickly. They see it as "protecting the flock", but in reality they simply can't compete with empirical physical alternatives to their metaphysical nonsense.